On Wed, Sep 6, 2017 at 10:21 PM, Mark Hatle <[email protected]> wrote: > > You are missing the point. We DO need a replacement. However, I was unable > to > find one. With the few references I found when searching that there was no > replacement, and it was effectively obsolete (and removed in other > distributions), I followed their example. > > As I said in the header, I don't believe this set is completely right. But > it's > a first stab and what it took for me to pass the testing script. > > I am retesting with this patch and the removal of gstreamer removed from the > test set (it will take a while, I've got -30,000- tasks to run through for a > test). It's possible that something else in the system was triggering a fault > that caused gstreamer-0.10 to fail and that was resolved elsewhere. > > I tested the original work against master, but rebased to master-next after > talking w/ Martin... I then spot checked the modified recipes that they were > still working after the rebase. > >> And please don't even think about running your magic script for >> meta-qt5-extra or send patches. > > Again, you are missing the point here. Someone has to start this work. It's > the layer maintainers decision to accept or reject the patches, not mine.. > but > I feel it's my obligation as a community member to submit the patches I create > to the community layers that I use. I also feel it's my obligation as a patch > submitter to explain why (or why not) they are necessary for my specific > use-case. (In this case, passing a specific compatibility test script.) > > --Mark > >> Over and out >> >> Andreas >> > I am sure that I miss the point again but fedora - for me reference/inspiration many times - has no problem with xfce4-mixer [1].
[1] http://pkgs.fedoraproject.org/cgit/rpms/xfce4-mixer.git/tree/xfce4-mixer.spec Andreas -- _______________________________________________ Openembedded-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openembedded.org/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-devel
